Wrong. The Ultimate goal is to get something repaired at the lowest reasonable cost possible while the repairer gains a reasonable profit from their work. Win-Win He invoked his rights and decided to sue because of the hassle Best Buy gave him. In good faith he took stereo to Best Buy to be repaired and paid the fees associated with that. The work was supposed to be completed on February 1 per the article. Seventeen days later, the work still wasn't done. Best Buy was in breach of contract for not delivering his stereo, repaired, back to him on Feb.1st. Secondly, per the article, he was promised by Best Buy to be notified if the costs involved in repairing the stereo were going to be more costly than originally agreed upon. This should have taken place BEFORE they sent the stereo to Sony. Any reputable repair person knows this otherwise they aren't in the repair business for long. After all the hassle and haggling, they gave him his stereo back with free repairs, this is true. Best Buy probably realized they messed up by breaking 2 or 3 consumer protections and decided to do so. The point is that Best Buy broke the law. Plain and simple. Who cares that he got the repairs for free in the end. If Best Buy hadn't of tried to gouge him with all these fees and hassle and just been straight forward with Jed, none of this wouldn't have happened. In winning, I seriously doubt he lost money. Usually the loser picks up all the legal costs and fees. If Best Buy said at first, "Sure, we'll repair it for free" then I would be inclined to agree with you. It was only after 23 days, lying to him, and giving him the run around that they finally offered to drop all costs.